Nowadays, we are short of true bitcoiners, the kind of people who have not given up with bitcoin and are still committed to the cause: an electronic p2p cash system. Where the hell are other guys?

I feel so lonely sometimes here the stupid block size debate has polarized this community in the worst way ever and we are short of true bitcoin advocates, keep posting more.

As of tx/s throughput I would say like 100 tx/s suffices for near future and is achievable by few improvements definitively including 1- a block time decrease 2- using schnorr signatures for mid term we need decentralization by getting rid of pools to be prepared for sharding.

We should never ever trust any second layer protocol/solution for scaling or other serious issues which bitcoin is designed for. Putting utilities on top of bitcoin is not bad, actually it would be very helpful as long as such utilities are not designed to compete with bitcoin and alienate people from the core system.

1. a blocktime decrease doesnt help. it actually affects many other things and has to many impacts on other things to outweight a pro:con balance to make it plausible.its far better to stay at 4mb per 10 min than do 1mb for 2.5min

2. schnorr sigs are useful for multisigs because it compact multiparties signatures to show as just 1 signature to hide who signs it. there are security risks as people can make a 2of 5 multisig. pretend its a 2 of 2 address and get someone to deposit funds into it (thinking they have absolute 50% control) and then the 2 of the 4 conmen sign it without the user who deposited funds knowing who actually signed it. and the transaction then appears like he consented to it. thus no legal route of recovery due to lack of proof that he didnt consent.in a normal lean legacy payment system, you dont need dual signing or second party authorisation. thus no multisig, thus no compacting.. that was the point of bitcoin. not needing others. like i said going back to simple lean transactions is best

3. other things can be done instead, like opcodes that just need 1 sig even if there are 500 inputs from the same address.so that if 500 different people paid into one address i wont need to sign all 500 times. but just once because its all in one address.. which is done by certain opcode not a schnorr

4. other things like new rules that if a mempool is more than 1mb but a block is less than 1mb then the pool is doing an obvious 'empty block' and thus gets auto rejected. thus ensuring pools are incentivised to fill blocks or not get a block reward. and thus help prevent pools backlogging transactions or trying to bottleneck the network by delaying confirmations of transactions by avoid adding them.. which is also a solution to one of the '51% attack vectors'. after all no one is silly enough to 51% a network just to reverse their coffee purchase. so the only 'threat' of a 51% attack is to bottleneck the network by not including tx's

5. if you want to decrease the blocktime to make it more user friendly for the 'i dont wanna wait at a cashier desk for 10 minute' argument.. well sorry but 2.5mins is just as lengthy a wait and doesnt really solve a queue build up at a retailer.but that can be solved easily by funding a address a retailer owns(bartab analogy) and then let the retailer deduct balance internally on their system.

6. as for sharding. well thats just 2nd layer again. sharding is just LN factories of many tx's and multiple parties when you rub away alot of the buzzwording. sharding is from a banking analogy just like regional bank branches .. id say its better than reducing blocktime. but at the same time its then formalising the infrastructure into what banks do by forcing certain peoples activities being routed to a specific small pool of nodes

after all its far easier to deposit $90 into a starbucks legacy address and they just give you an in app balance of $90(30 coffee's) then to do all the convoluted effort of, make 5 LN locked channels funded with $18 per channel for good 'connectivity'/chance of success, but has the risks of channel offline situations(not able to spend $18) .. just for you to be able to buy at most 30 coffees(as long as all routes are avalable on the days after each $18 channel funds are spent).think about it 10 onchain tx's to setup and eventualy close 5 channels. and no guarantee of being able to spend all $90.

where as just paying starbucks $90 in 1 legacy tx and they give you an inapp balance is so much easier for everyone and the network and even onchain fees

and especially with the risks that OTHER LN people will spend those $18 channel values by routing through you.. in short LN doesnt guarantee your $90 gets you 30 coffees.. but just depositing $90 (prepay) into a legacy address does

and thats the real funny part. those 'it cant scalers' think that the debate is about buying 1 coffee 3 times a day cant scale so needs offchain systems forced on everyone. when infact it just needs regular coffee drinkers to bulk buy(bartab) their coffee, but done simply using legacy transaction. rather than alternative networks requiring everyone to be online allday every day and where routing is required thus many people signing and agreeing to be part of your payment..

devs are over complicating solutions to issues they stifled and created themselves, all so they can own one of the precious future hubs/shards of nodes to get loads of fee's to repay their investors

if people want to work out mining costsbefore june 2018 take the hashrate in exa and multiply it by 277(old gen asics cost)after june 2018 take the hashrate in exa and multiply it by 135(current batch asics cost)

i know alot of people will have lots of different electricity costs but based on the main mining done by farms who can get the best deals(below 5c) then the important thing is the ones that can kep the costs down to have the lowest cost prices and thus more inclined to sell for less and still breakeven/profit.

oh and as for the next gen asics. take the exa predictions of october+ and multiply it by 65(next gen asics cost)im hoping that by november once the next gen 7nm asics are released installed and mining. that the hashrate is above 90exa to counter the new gen rigs of that period to keep inline with the $5800 LOW/bottomline for 2018

I believe that this market has never been characterized by great stability, because unlike institutional markets, the crypto market has been much more susceptible to experiencing large inflows or outflows of capital according to the rumors or the emotional aspect of the investors.

when it stops taking just a few hundred BTC to shift the price by $200alot of faith in exchanges has gone. so orderlines are not filled to the top. instead of 500 people putting in orders at $xxxx.00 and another 500 people at $xxxx.01 we have 1 person at $xxxx.00 and 1 person at $xxxx.01 whereby they are only risking, say $50 each

but all that really matters in the big picture is2016 > $3002017 > $9002018 > $5800

imagine bitcoins price like a bathtub of water and bubbles.the underlying waterline is the LOW/bottom price of btc over a period. this is the line people refuse to go below or they collectively drown. this bottom line is made up of acquisition cost agreement, which is tested over time by those selling and reaching a low no one wants to crossso lets deal with acquisitions costs. (i cant be assed to repeat myself so ill just quote myself)

now here is why bitcoin wont go downacquisition costs1. mining. right now miners have to buy equipment and pay electric to acquire fresh coins. the cost of this is, based on this months LOW hashrate of 42exa(5th sept) =$5670.. only the mining pool that mined coins at 42exa's block would sell their coins for $5670 to just break even. no mining pool will sell their coins at a loss so the other coins they mine this month at higher hashrates would have a higher cost average.

2. trading. since november 2017 and retested end of june 2018. no trader has sold below $5800. there has been 10 months of oppertunity for anyone who is happy to sell below $5800 to actually sell below $5800... no one has.as for those that did sell at $5800 in november and june they sold, they are out they took their funds and left. the buyer of those coins now has a cost of $5800 and they wont stupidly sell for less.

3. looking at the UTXO data over 65% of coins have moved/changed hands since the $5,800 price point. and they have not sold below $5800. the other 35% are older coins. which some say could be lost keys, held in trust/for retirement. locked in bankrupcy legal blackholes(mtgox). so in short 2 thirds of the community dont want to sell for less because they have ben active enough to show they had oppertunity. but have not sold when they had the chance

4. so since the november and retested a few times. people with coins and mining coins have to a majority of over 65% collectively agreed they wont sell below $5800.

now lets imagine that the $5800 could be broken. the idea is that of the 35% that didnt move/spend/sell even though their costs are below $5800 is because they:have not checked the price for a year and didnt realise the pricelost their keys. not ready to sell yet

now we all know that the 35% doesnt belong to one person. and if it was a group and they wanted to collectively collude. they would have done so already. they had many chances to group up.but if one person had 5000btc to sell down the market volume of bitfinex to $5800 or 2000btc to sell down the market of GDAX. before they even get to sell their last coin. the market buyers wishing to buy over $5800 would be grabbing coins before 5800 and the price wont get to what the seller wants to push it down to, in short it would flash crash and then the buyers will see it as a discount opportunity and recover the price back up.

it would require alot of coins to tank the price and then perpetually keep it down to fight off the buyers who will be counteracting those efforts. this worry is the whole thing about the "what if MTGox,, what if satoshi" .. well as i said earlier. they have had plenty of chances while the price is above $5800 to sell

but because 10 months of opportunity has shown no desire to do it and the mining costs show pools wont. id say thats a good case and percentage we wont see the bottom fall out of the market

so that explains the waterline (bottom line no one wants to cross

as for the volatile stuff.. well the november-december 2017 was stir of the water to create lots of bubbles to make it appear the bath is more filled then it is. but it was not sustainable and once people started reacting to the bubble period. they all popped and corrected down to the waterline again

the majority of those buying in during the $4k-$20k were actually institutional money. buying up coins to settle up and buy coins to pay out a contracted tranche of funds to the devs for reaching their contractual duties of segwit by mid november.

taxesno matter what the currency is. there are already laws for people to pay taxes. if you want to pay taxes then continue to pay them. its like living in america but getting paid in EUROS. you still pay your american taxes by just using the exchange rates and paying tax in dollars. so nothing needs to change.its not like new laws need to be made to force IRS to accept EUROS or Pounds..or btc. so just calculate your income and pay in dollars. keep bitcoin out of government hands or you'll end up with them hoarding btc and we are still in the same FIAT situation. where btc is just a fiat and not all taxes actually end up in 'public services' but in government back pockets

by handing IRS btc. what happens is every trade that occurs people have to hand over 20% of their bitcoin.

alice (1btc) -> bob(0.8btc) -> IRS (0.2btc)

bob (0.8btc) -> dave(0.64btc) -> IRS (0.16btc)

dave (0.64btc) -> bob(0.512btc) -> IRS (0.128btc)

as you can see it doesnt take long for the IRS to hoard half the coin circulating.

as for regulationsthese are to allow businesses to police their customers. its not a consumer protection. its a business sherrifs badge to make people trust they are honourable so people give them funds.what people should be lobbying for is consumer protection. meaning consumers police the businesses and so the businesses have to not break the law or suffer the consequences

we do not need millions a second..think about it 1mill a second = 60m a minute= 3.6b an hour= 86billion a day.thats ludicrous

first of all visa stats and mastercard show that people on average do 45 transactions a month. which is 1.5 a dayobviously bitcoin is not as acceptable as visa/mastercard. so for now we should be working on less than visa and scale up as we go.

so with that said. we dont need a 86BILLION tx a day network we dont even need a 8.6 billion tx a day network. because not everyone is going to use bitcoin everyday right now.

so forget 1m tx a second. forget 100k tx a second.

the stupid fools that think what the community are begging for are move from <7 to >million overnight and shout out "gigabytes by midnight" , are the small minded people that never actually think rationally or logically.i really find it funny that the onchain scalers are not screaming for millions per second. but instead steady progress over time.. and its actually the offchain people who dont understand, dont trust or have been paid to give up on blockchains that are screaming for millions per second and gigabytes by midnight as the only options.

the true comunity are begging for progressive onchain rises over logical time. not huge leaps of onchain jumps or lse needing to abandon blockchain utility for some locked fed reserve network of swapping account of promissory notes

what we need to do is not let bitcoin get stifled so much that it ends up as a 0 tx a second and then just 5 mega factory TX's every 10 minutes where the LN factories swap their reserves with other factories onchain.. (bank reserve swaps) yea the devs want bitcoin to be the backend of the LN network. where reserves are swapped.. yep thats right they want bitcoin as a bankers reserve currency and where LN is the bankers payment system for their clients(channel users)

anyway we need to preserve onchain utility for normal people. that involves going back to basics. and then expand as we go too

so lets start by making tx's lean. to gt to a possible 4200tx per mb. then with 4mb being allowed by the devs. lets open the legacy limit so the full4mb can be used by such 16,800tx for 4mb.16,800 =2million a day(oh look the 2million users a day in YOUR 2million ideal scenario)

so using actual stats from visa of spending per day. 2million users would only need 4mb blocks of normal lean tx's where legacy transactions can utilise the full 4mb

also to note in LN 2 million users with LN is actually an average of each user needing 5 channels so thats 10million tx's to open and 10million to close.which means people have to preplan and organise funds for about a 10 day lockin.

...

and before you rebut that blockchains cant scale.. that was like the deluded script of kodak saying digital photography cant scale because of floppy disk data limits. (look how that turned out)if you want to doubt the limits of data and the internet. please go tell skyp that HD video calls dont work or go complain to EAgames that online gaming cant work. or speak to youtube, twitch, and other livestream sits cant work

or do the rational thing, and realise technology expands all the time and things progress as time goes on. but whatever you do dont even try to say blockchains are broke and the only way forward is locking funds into channels(accounts) that need someone else to sign for a payment and needs every middleman and the destination to be online to accept payment.. as that is the same AND worse system than what bankers already offer

the majority of those buying in during the $4k-$20k were actually institutional money. buying up coins to settle up and buy coins to pay out a contracted tranche of funds to the devs for reaching their contractual duties of segwit by mid november.

(yep it was no coincidence that so much pressure was to get segwit activated between november 2017-2018. and then a sudden price spike)

anyway as for the yearly changes2016>3002017>9002018>5800

i fully agree we have been on a continued growth of bull run.. yea there have been temporary ups and downs in between but i dont call them bull and bear.. i call them calves and cubs(younger, small ages/time bull and bear)

how do you regulate currencies.. the same way you regulate liquids and plants

you cant destroy the cannibis growth or the beer growth or its consumption.the war on drugs and alcohol prohibition era proved that.

all that is done is outlawing or controlling the people and businesses. but thats IF agencies find whos selling or buying it. but yea blackmarkets, street dealers still happenmoonshiners, 'speakeasies' still happened

we are not talking about a country with high costs of living. we are talking about China. they have weird things that you can't even imagine. such as "Capsules Hotels" which costs about $5/night so you can have a roof over your head for a little more than $100 of your total money.

also stayed at mcdonalds and ate left over burgersended up in hospital with hypoglycemia1. when in china you can hang around many restaurants and eat left overs from many different varieties. why only at burgers.. dang. even if you stayed at mcdonalds, they do serve more than just burgers.. so again why only eat burgers2. if she had hypoglycemia after just 3 days. i guess she has an underlying medical problem and should have thought about and naturally known about trying a varied diet. so again why only burgers... EG stand near a vegetarian restaurant or dare i say it a chines restaurant

seems her choice of location to be in was the flaw. not the currency.even with no currencies of any type. i would atleast explore the variety of locations and see whats available

your not going to find many bitcoin hotels, restaurants if you decide to go on strike and just sit in one restaurant for 3 days only eating leftovers of one food type

maybe the chinese lady should have tried 'beccy and austin' (life on bitcoin) as a tutor before doing the project, they done well and lasted longer

sorry intervaluebut your just devolving blockchain back into banking infrustructure

shards are just regional banks with several clearing houses. where the 'suffix' each region has is just what banks call routing numbers or sortcodes.

sharding is not blockchain +x.x.. its actually blockchains minus X

yea the shards suffix is not based on physical location of people. but people with the particular sortcode(suffix) are tied to a particular shard to verify their payment, much like bank accounts today

by the way how do banks become banks. by showing they have a certain reserve and will follow rules or lose their reserve sounds like PoS to me.

all your patchwork of grabbing x idea and y idea and z idea is just reinventing the banking infrustructure.

i have read your posts and looked beyond it, ive been around since 2012 so i understand all your ramblings behind the buzzwords and i even ran simulations.. i done close minded scenarios, open minded, inside and outside the box scenarios.

end result with good data your still not going to get your peak txps in real world usage. and ofcourse with bad data it will get far worse. and with manipulators even worse. your system is not ready or battle tested as all i see is that you are utopia testing.(many flaws you have young grasshopper)

P.S i know your trying to advertise your altcoin. but please do go take it to the altcoin section

currently bitcoin mining is profitable. if you living in the right area and have the right equipment

and so this topic will eventually squabble around and eventually say but what about the residence and the impact to bitcoin sucking energy away from them causing issues.. well ill just leave this quote here.. oh and it also includes the stupid "china have 50%" screams and worries addressed too

The generation of electricity cannot be stored or "saved" because the world does not have the technology to "hold" all that energy yet. Once it is generated, it should be used, or the costs used to generate it would be wasted. The only "wasted electricity" is unused electricity.

There definitively are miners using partially "not-scarce" electricity (like coal/hydro/nuclear power at night when there is low domestic consumption but the plants cannot be "regulated down"). But if only because of Bitcoin mining, existing plants have to work more, or new electric plants have to be built, then Bitcoin "is using scarce electricity". I am pretty sure that this applies to a majority of miners.

power plants do regulate. and at night they do shut down some generators.but they do try to keep some excess between produced and consumed.it does take 30mins-1 hour to restart a generator. so they like to keep a gap. and they also like to sell some of that excess to other countries** **OR INDUSTRIES hint hintso here goeslets imagine out of the 20.7twh.. that 50% was just in china (10.35)china consumes 5683china produces 6529=836 difference (13% safety gap)

Pinning all the hopes on ETF seems like a lost cause. the market was operating well without it and there seems to be no reason to give so much importance to ETF that the market is coming to shambles. Also it seems to be unlikely for it to be approved again.

people are excited about it because1. when blockstream completed their contract and got their contractual deadline of segwit by november 2018.. they got paid. and they wanted it in BTC. so the investors bought BTC (look what happened from midnovember to december)

2. if you look at the markets and see the order lines and see it only takes a few thousand btc to move the price by thousands. then when an ETF wants to add another "basket" of coins to their trust to offer more shares once the ones already pre rserved and share divided have been bought guess what will happen

its mor likely that they will suspend all novice institutions right up untill the date the top 2 institutions are ready..

as we all know first in wins.. so SEC is just making sure it aint the winkles'imagine if you could control who will be the very first company to sell something. wouldnt you prefer it to be one of your buddies rather then a set of twins whos only fame is going to the same social parties as zuckerburg in their college days

even if all the i's are dotted and t's are crossed. SEC will choose their buddies first. its that obvious.. its a waiting game for their buddies to be ready. nothing to do with legal issues or problems its just in "the public" interest. and guess who "the public" that is interested... the SEC after their workshift in a bar with their buddies

in short:their buddies are late, but its ok the SEC have their seats reserved

by the wayReid Muoio, Esq is a goldman sachs buddie.. hmm i wonder who's sat is all nicely warmed up and reserved.

if he said analogue or paper.. then fine h would be wrong.but he did not he just kept it as simple as possible

just because he didnt go techno and detail the specifics to the finest detail and include all jargon of the inner complexities of "electronic" doesnt mean its wrong.

he was giving a basic title the most ELI-5 explanation possible the difference between paper or electronic cash.

P.Si have a dog.

wait im wrong.. dang it. i must not have a dog because i did not finely describe it to the nth degree of detail. OMG i dont have a dog, please where did my dog go.... oh wait i do have a dog, phew, that was close

Easier said than done. I've probably done this if only I could go to our local store and use bitcoin. But unfortunately global adoption isn't THAT widely spread as of today; so most of us pretty much have no choice but to use fiat paper money and credit/debit cards because there's no alternative.

bitcoin has no arms or legs or a voice. it is just code. bitcoin cannot get on a plane and have a meeting with a shop owner in your town. if you are waiting for bitcoin to come running in like a roman legion to invade fiat land. you are mistaken.

a message to everyone, nothing personal:if YOU want bitcoin in YOUR town so YOU can spend YOUR bitcoin. then guess who has to go talk with their local shops about bitcoin.. (hint in capitals)

steps to hlp progress bitcoin adoption locally.1. organise local meetups in your area with others who do know of bitcoin and like to talk about it.2. finds out some key people who are good at doing a sales pitch/communicating. regular buyer of bitcoin or willing to give merchants fiat for the bitcoin the merchant gets if your area has good easy sign-up processes to an exchange or bitcoin merchant tools service. use that instead3. if you get a good group who finds they all regularly spend at certain shops/car fuel stations. then use that as main target4. the more people that simply do their shopping and just prompt the question "do you accept bitcoin" the more intrigue the shop will have to look into it.

solution to onchain scaling1. reduce the sigops limit per tx.. no one should get to have 20% control of a block for thier txbenefit. more tx per block if a greedy tx'er tries and less time needed to validate each tx (its what would have solved the linier validation problem that legacy transactions had that certain paid devs used as an excuse to push segwit through)(p.s some of the new/reintroduced OPCodes actually make 'malleability problem' possible again.. (facepalm))

2. let the 4mb WEIGHT be 4mb LEGACY space. that way you can take out all the jumbled code of x4 and just get back to normal WEIGHT=MB used and not the 'virtual' space used. 4mb should be 4mb 1 mb should be 1mb its the whole point of the limits

3. if space is the problem then stop adding in new features that increase the average bytes per TX. EG confidential payments will add more bytes to a TX. if you really love privacy so much then go use LN and be private and leave bitcoins mainnet to be lean and also FULLY AUDITABLE where by people can see funds from block reward to current owner. to prove value is real.. hiding it will make people trust the currency less (oops did i just counter the other plans devs have to ruin bitcoin by screaming it cant scale it aint a payment network and soon it aint auditable(the plans of killing a currency are by taking away its utility))

4. go back to basicsbring back a fee mechanism thats not like the old one where the amount held by UTXO negates the bytes used to get the fee low. yea the old fee formulae made it cheap for rich UTXO and expensive for small holders (facepalm)

but instead a (simplified for conversational purpose)bytes used * (144/confirms of UTXO)meaning if the coins only have 1confirm it will cost them 144x more then normal.. thus spammers (over the ordinary use) pay more after all if they want to transact more than once a day. lock funds into LN and go play

the ACTUAL power usage is not the 1% that has been spouted aboutby doing calculations on this months hashrate. the electrical usage is about 0.1% of RESIDENTIAL USAGE

which if you were to combine it with industrial and commercial. would be far LOWER and then if you think about the new gen ASICS coming soon which are not only twice the hashrate but also less electric needed per unit. then the efficiency gets even better and the percentage drops again(under 0.03%)..

now then. if we were to take todays hashrate but go back to GPU mining and take the electric requirements of that. then GPU mining would be about 1400x an asic per kwh meaning the current 0.1% ASIC would be 140% of world electric GPU mining..

so relax. people are already ahead of you worry. they been ahead of it since 2013.so much so infact that the electric consumption vs generation gap (the excess) bitcoin is not even using up 1% of EXCESS